Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
P.M.K. Moorthy - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others - Respondent
WP No. 14483 of 2014
Decided On : 14-06-2022
For the Petitioner:C. Veeraraghavan, Advocate. For the Respondents: M. Bindran, Additional Government Pleader.
Appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant is to be made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force, and appointments by entities other than the Competent Authorities of the Education Department do not confer a right to claim permanent appointment in the Education Department.
Headnote:
Appointment - Post Graduate Teacher - The court held that the petitioner, who was appointed by the Parent Teachers Association and not by the Competent Authorities of the Education Department, cannot claim permanent appointment in the Education Department. The appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant is to be made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force, and the Teachers Recruitment Board is the authority for conducting the selection process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed by the Parent Teachers Association, was terminated from service and sought re-appointment, which was rejected by the third respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and that he cannot claim permanent appointment in the Education Department.
Issues: Validity of the petitioner's termination and rejection of re-appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant is to be made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force, and the petitioner's appointment by the Parent Teachers Association did not provide him with a right to claim permanent appointment in the Education Department.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.674/A4/2014 dated 28.03.2014 and quash the same and thereby direct the third respondent to reinitiate the petitioner as a Post Graduate Teacher with all pay, all the back wages, arrears of salary and attended benefits etc.)
The order impugned issued by the third respondent dated 28.03.2014, ousting the services of the writ petitioner, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher for Accountancy and Commerce by the Parent Teachers Association.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner continued in service for about 5 years and terminated from service on 19.12.2012.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force and he was appointed by the Parent Teachers Association and his salary was paid from the funds maintained by the Parent Teachers Association. Therefore, the petitioner was not appointed by the Competent Authorities of the Education Department.
5. The petitioner was terminated from service in the year 2012 and thereafter, he made a representation to consider his case for re-appointment, which was rejected by the third respondent in proceedings dated 28.03.2014, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Even at the time of filing of the present writ petition, the writ petitioner was aged about 41 years and now he would be around 49 years of age.
6. Appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant is to be made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force and now the Teachers Recruitment Board is the authority for conducting the selection process.
7. This being the factum, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant and further more, he was engaged by the Parent Teachers Association and if the Parent Teachers Association is willing to engage the services of the writ petitioner, it is for the Association to take decision independently, which would not provide any right for the petitioner to claim permanent appointment in the Education Department.
8. With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.`
